http://current.com/items/88913552/social_networking_wars.htm

I feel like there is considerably more to say about this. Although the social-network effects ‘make’ people choose which site to use, the base of all these effects seem to be born out of aesthetic decisions. The feeling of ‘facebook being safer’ could be attributed to facebooks clinical/structured feel. Your aesthetic decisions on facebook are all structured and ordered by a power that’s ‘above you’. If myspace were a poster-board, facebook would be a form you fill out with designated boxes for ‘name/age’ etc. The do-anything-you-like aesthetic creates a feeling of danger, even though short contemplation makes one realize that facebook probably has more of your real data. There are many other aspects of these chapters that I think could be somewhat derived from the aesthetics of each site. The highschool poster-board feel of myspace could create the labeling of oneself as ‘too mature’ in relation to why someone wouldn’t want to join.

In relation to the transparency of interface, giving the user control over layout is a terrible idea. The entire point of a website is to create a seamless interaction with the content (old-facebook did this really well; some aspects of the new design are a bit overwhelming and complex). From a functional standpoint, allowing the users to have aesthetic control is a terrible idea. Facebook offers a ‘box’ for everything you may want (pictures in this box, music application in this other box, this here, that there) and myspace allows you to slap everything you desire on one giant page. These approaches are completely opposite aesthetically/functionally.

Studying aesthetics does seem a lot more assumption-based than studying blatant evidence derived from observing network effects. This means it probably isn’t the best incision point for study, but an incredibly interesting one nonetheless. I’d like to read someone’s interpretation of why this social divide exists based purely on aesthetic decisions made by the social-site creators.

Boyd’s observation that teens repurpose tools on Myspace that were designed to help people meet new people is insightful (131). Also, her observations of teens’ sense of control (real or imagined) as a central factor in determining their comfort level online, along with the fact that they seem to realize that their profiles can be viewed by “the public”, but they still do not see their “participation in networked publics as being universally public” (139); yet to adults, “technology makes access appear public” (147).

I found Boyd’s analysis of age as it relates to sense of control is interesting and rings true. After my parents got a divorce, I made my mom a profile on myspace, then facebook, so that she could connect with old friends or find new people of interest to socialize with. I recall recognizing her isolation and tying that to how I felt being too young to get into anywhere of interest in our small town. We became closer, though I told her everything and showed her all the pictures I put up anyway. It’s really an interesting dynamic.

Comments by David Hrisco

Boyd explores the argument of today’s youth and how they interact with society. Boyd approaches her argument from a “socialist constructivist” point or view”. She also avoids “technological determinism”. In her ethnography studies she states that she tries to avoid the SCOT theory. Her major thesis states the examination of teenagers and how they interact in “Networked Places”.

Boyd’s definition of networked places includes the online realms of
”My Space” and “FaceBook”. Boyd avoids “technological determinism”, which defines that people are subjected to technology and society which affect the human’s social development (question about this topic). Also, Boyd defines a methodology of SCOT’s theory but she states that she uses it as a framework of thinking about networked places.

As Boyd defines her arguments, she gives vivid definitions which are discussed further in her thesis and these include: the invisible audience, the replicable, and scalability within network publics. Before she discusses the network publics Boyd gives an account of a journal article regarding the “physical atom” and “bits of space” that are the “bits” virtual. These metaphors were used by a scientist to describe how “bits” of information would flow fluidly and transform the way information is delivered. Also, this discussion of atoms and bit’s sets up Boyd definition’s of scalability, replicability, and the invisible audience. These are “dynamics which must be recognized in the study of network publics.”

Digital Media blogger Julia Roy illustrates this problem in a recent blog entitled “The Facebook ‘Friend’ Predicament’ (http://www.juliaroy.com/juliapatriciaroy/2009/04/my-myspace-facebook-wall.html ). Roy describes that lately her Facebook wall has been bombarded with random spam messages and nonsense from people she does not know – comments that do not reflect her circle of friends or her identity (she suggests that these types of comments belong on Myspace, which is a different discussion). Her solution is to merely delete all of these messages so that the comments from her real friends are not diluted by comments which do not accurately portray who she is.

I also found boyd’s discussion of how drama plays a role in social media (Section 5.5) interesting, particularly in regards to spreading rumors and relationships. I think that Facebook and Myspace have revolutionized the way that teens approach relationships and dating. These days, a relationship is not considered “official” until it is documented on Facebook – the “boyfriend/girlfriend” status does not come into existence until it is displayed on the couple’s social network. Never before have relationships been so public and subject to rumors and scrutiny than with the emergence of Facebook and Myspace. I feel like social networking sites are the most interesting innovation of my generation… I could spend hours talking about Facebook, but I will reserve that for my final project.

From their affiliations to their profile appearance, to the pictures they upload, teenagers are very careful about constructing their identities online. As more and more people (teens or adults) actively participate in cyberspace and broadcast their every step, I can’t help but wonder about the next generation kids and teens whose lives will become unwillingly disclosed, shared, and commented on by their tech savvy and cyber-addicted parents. No matter how meticulous these kids are in presenting themselves in cyberspace, future teenagers will have a difficult time maintaining and controlling their social personas because parents will have disclosed their every single move even prior to them being born!

Teenagers generally use social networks to connect with their peers. They use profiles, pictures, notes, comments, etc. to present themselves in cyberspace, and tend to share many little details about their lives with their peers. I wonder what will happen when these teens become parents themselves? What will happen to teen/parent dynamics when future parents have all their activities, photos, and personal details recorded and published on the web? Part of the traditional teen/parent relationship was based on parental authority when kids were kept unaware of their parents’ past. What will happen to parental authority when parents are easily disclosed?

boyd explains that social networks provide greater opportunities for teens to build their identity and figure out the world around them. Yet, it seems to me that majority of these identities are sculpted and performed. How can it be otherwise when, under the notion of fear or safety, teens’ cyber presence can be held against them by parents, teachers, or future employers?

I also felt that the whole article spoke to the underlying silent agreement that we spoke about in the last class (I think, I hope I’m not just making this up…) in which the parents turn a blind eye to certain activities. I believe someone said “In the 50’s parents knew kids were sneaking out, but they allowed it to happen as long as they believed that no one was going to get hurt.” This type of arrangement seems to be an underlying theme throughout Boyd’s writing. Boyd seems to be trying to explain why teens are secretive while utilizing this public space, however she neglects to get to the source of these needs. Maybe that wasn’t her goal, but I’d like to hear more about the demographics from which these teens come from and why they have these reactions. There was a lack of examples of active and engaged parental figures and their roles in this discussion.

I’m curious to know more about the “participation gap” (188). Will this ultimately lead to a group of people technically stifled to the point that they will never quite catch up to those that have been utilizing this technology their entire lives? Will we see the speed of this adoption become such a force powerful that it will create a new form of literacy? Will those who are not allowed access or allowed “less access” be so behind that, again with the speed of emerging technologies, they will never be able to catch up? Will blocking social networking site become a kin to banning books? Obviously that’s a bit extreme, but the possibilities could eventually be there. If this becomes one of the key elements in communication between teens, and drastically alters the way they connect to one another on a human level, will blocking these site be considered inhumane?

I remember when I first signed up for AOL and it was time to create a screen name. I wound up picking WooHaFooi, which was a combination of a Busta Rhymes song I was listening to at the time and a different spelling of the last word in the title of a Hanna Barbara cartoon, Hong Kong Phooey. Why in the world this turned into my screen name, I could never tell you . . . teens are fascinating creatures . . .

It was interesting to see how the everyday social activities are moved to the virtual world among the teens, although it is not surprising once you start to think about it. And it was extra interesting for me to see that the social groups got carried to the virtual world. While the big picture of those groups remains, there is more interaction among different group members, which I think is a plus. It is kind of sad to see that race is still a problem among the teens though.

I kind of feel bad for parents nowadays for having to deal with all these teenage children problems not only in real life, but also online too. For my parents’ generation, it was too much of a trouble to learn about the technologies and they just opted out. But with the advent of social networking sites, opting out seems be out of the question. Parents are constantly updating themselves about what’s “cool.” And they have to beat their kids to learning about new software that would help the teens to get on inappropriate websites. The technology is somehow becoming an impact on how the parents educate their teens. It brought tension into the parents and the teens’ lives. I think the convenience of the technology might have made this parent-children relationship a little too complicated than it really should be.

The use of the word “real” may unintentionally reveal my inclination for which of the two kinds of social interactions matters the most. While face-to-face social interactions are still quite normal, this has the potential to drastically decline in the future. Even so, unless we are plugged-in to something like the Matrix, real world social interaction will always take precedence over what occurs on Facebook (or its equivalent). Therefore, what is most interesting to me is how these interactions contribute to and detract from interactions in the real world. For example, friends are different things on Facebook than they are in the real world. Things are much more commoditized. This has the potential to blend back in with how people view their interactions with people face-to-face. On the other hand, it is much easier to see common interests and make connections online, bringing that information back into real-life interactions.

From the article, teen’s home pages are much easier to create than HTML home pages. Teens have to create a home page that represents themselves or an idealized version of themselves. She describes how the teens separates themselves from there friends with there home page decoration. Her example reminded me of De Saussure’s example of a how the brains tell difference between chairs by how it is not like other chairs? She did not explain the process teens go through to make choices about there decorations. She did capture the spirit of why the teens participate and select decorations.

Her example of the teens decorating there home page was very interesting. Can teen’s home page decoration be considered as art? Would teens decorated home page be considered art in order to move the social structure in a Marxist world? She uses Marxist vocabulary to describe the effect of the teens participating in Myspace.com and Facebook.com. The social capital created by the home page is very interesting. How can a teen trend move the social structure?